Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
TATA INFOMEDIA LIMITED
Versus
TATA PRESS EMPLOYEES’ UNION
Decided on 23/3/2005
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Disciplinary enquiry - Charge of Misconduct - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Charge of misconduct based on evidence on record - Sustainable - Labour Court not required to determine sufficiency of evidence. - The charge of misconduct was found to have been established on a consideration of the entire evidence. There is evidence not merely of the witnesses for the management but there are admissions contained in the evidence of the charge-sheeted workman in the course of his cross-examination. There was a sustainable finding of misconduct based on evidence on the record. This was clearly not a case of perversity. The enquiry officer had neither acted in breach of the principles of nature justice nor could the finding be regarded as one which no reasonable body of persons could have entered in the course of an adjudication into facts before the disciplinary enquiry. Each of the considerations that has weighed with the Labour Court is alien to the parameters of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A. The Labour Court held that the Managing Director and the production Manager who were gheraoed were not examined. This in Court’s view, cannot certainly be regarded as fatal to the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. The question before the Labour Court was whether there was evidence some evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct. Once that question is answered in the affirmative as in the present case it has to be, the sufficiency of that evidence was clearly not a matter for the Labour Court to determine.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Disciplinary enquiry - Powers of Labour Court under Act - Procedure for conducting enquiry stated - Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 11-A of Act unlimited - Jurisdiction is supervisory in nature. - The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not unlimited Section 11-A does not confer an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The jurisdiction is supervisory in nature to be exercised where the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on no evidence where there has been a transgression of the principles of natural justice or where the finding is perverse in the sense that no reasonable body of persons could have arrived at such finding.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 11-A of Act. - Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with findings in disciplinary enquiry based on evidence on record. - Where the charge of misconduct against the workmen related to a gherao of the Managing Director and the Production Manager with the resultant stoppage of work and the finding of misconduct was arrived at in the disciplinary proceeding was sustainable with reference to the evidence on record.
Held, that there was no occasion for the Labour Court to hold that a proceeding ought to have been initiated for getting the strike declared as illegal before the disciplinary proceedings could be sustained. The Labour Court has transgressed the limits of its own jurisdiction in interfering with the findings in the disciplinary enquiry which were based on evidence. The Labour Court had ignored the material evidence. In appreciating the evidence on the record, the Labour Court applied a standard which is not consistent with the standard of proof of a preponderance of probabilities that must govern a disciplinary proceeding. In relying upon minor inconsistencies the Labour Court lost sight of the fundamental nature of its jurisdiction which was to determine as to whether there was material on the record to sustain the charge of misconduct. Petition accordingly is allowed and the order of the Labour Court is to be quashed and set aside.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Jurisdiction of Labour Court. - Findings in disciplinary enquiry interferred by Labour Court is liable to be set aside.
( 1 ) 1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the labour Court at Mumbai on 23rd October, 2001 in a reference to adjudication by which the enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding was held to be fair and proper, but, the finding was declared to be perverse.
( 2 ) ON 19th January, 1991 charge-sheets were issued to ten workmen. A disciplinary proceeding was held in respect of misconducts that were alleged to have been committed on 22nd August, 1990 and 14th September, 1990. In respect of the incident of 22nd August, 1990, the allegation was that the workmen had unauthorizedly left their work place; resorted to an illegal and unjustified stoppage of work and that they had participated in a gherao of the managing Director and the General Manager in-charge of production. The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 14th September, 1990 during the course of which the workmen are alleged to have instigated other workmen to proceed on an illegal strike. The workmen were accordingly charged with commission of acts of misconduct under clauses (a), (b), (d), (k), (1) and (r) of Standing Order 23 viz. (i) Wilful insubordination or disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order of a superior; (ii) Proceeding on an illegal strike or abetting, inciting, instigating an illegal strike or action in furtherance thereof; (iii) Theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business of the employer or his property and (iv) drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment.
( 3 ) DURING the course of the enquiry, the management led the evidence of four witnesses -
(I) J. U. Pethe who was the Manager in-charge of administration and Security; (ii) Martin Lobo, the Manager of the Prepress; (iii) C. M. Chalke, Assistant Manager, Binding and Works Superintendent and (iv) Maruti Tawade, who was a supervisor. M. L. Savvant one of the charge sheeted workmen deposed in defence. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 10th May, 1993 held that the charge of wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors was proved. The Enquiry Officer held that the workmen had proceeded on an illegal strike and had abetted, incited and instigated others in furtherance thereof. The charge of riotous and disorderly behaviour on the premises of the establishment was held to be proved as well as the charge of the commission of an act subversive of discipline. However, the charge of theft, fraud and dishonesty was held not to be proved. An order of dismissal came to be passed.
( 4 ) A reference to adjudication was made under section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. By consent of parties the Labour Court delivered a Part I award on 23rd October, 2001 in respect of four workmen to whom the present proceedings relate viz. D. G. Naik, M. L. Sawant, B. M. Save and V. H. Sandav. By its award the Labour Court has held that while the enquiry was fair and proper, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.
( 5 ) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Labour court has transgressed the limits on the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the charge of misconduct in the present case is urged to be of a serious nature involving a gherao, a wilful stoppage of the work and of the workmen having proceeded on an illegal strike. Before the Enquiry Officer the management had adduced evidence of four witnesses including eye witnesses who were personally present when the acts of misconduct took place. The finding of the Enquiry Officer, it was urged, was based on legally sustainable evidence. Having regard, therefore, to the parameters of the jurisdiction under section 11-A, it was submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in substituting its findings for those of the Enquiry Officer which were based on evidence. A disciplinary enquiry, it was submitted,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
